On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 6:52 AM David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 05:20 +, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> > The *patch* is not trying to overrule NVME, and the best I can say is
> > that the Intel Linux team was not in the loop when this was being
> > decided between the platform BIOS
On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 05:20 +, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> The *patch* is not trying to overrule NVME, and the best I can say is
> that the Intel Linux team was not in the loop when this was being
> decided between the platform BIOS implemenation and whomever thought
> they could just publish ra
On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 15:12 +0200, h...@lst.de wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:11:13AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > Not drop completely. This patch copied the code used to read _DSD
> > properties under PCI root ports. But I agree that such properties
> > should apply to all devices on those
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:11:13AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> Not drop completely. This patch copied the code used to read _DSD
> properties under PCI root ports. But I agree that such properties
> should apply to all devices on those ports and unfortuntely that's not
> the case here. BIOS got it
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:20:09AM +, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> > The platform can know which pm policies will save the most power. But
> > since the solution doesn't apply to all PCIe devices (despite BIOS
> > specifying it that way) I'll withdraw this patch. Thanks.
>
> Wait, why withdraw? In
On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 05:20 +, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 08:27 -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 16:22 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:09:59AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > I'm not sure who came up with the idea to
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:20:09AM +, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 08:27 -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 16:22 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:09:59AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > I'm not sure who came up with the i
On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 08:27 -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 16:22 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:09:59AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure who came up with the idea to put this into ACPI,
> > > > but
> > > > it
> > > > belongs into NV
On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 16:22 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:09:59AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > > I'm not sure who came up with the idea to put this into ACPI, but
> > > it
> > > belongs into NVMe. Please talk to the NVMe technical working
> > > group
> > > instead
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:09:59AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > I'm not sure who came up with the idea to put this into ACPI, but it
> > belongs into NVMe. Please talk to the NVMe technical working group
> > instead of trying to overrules them in an unrelated group that
> > doesn't
> > apply to
On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 07:13 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 05:32:12PM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > NVMe storage power management during suspend-to-idle, particularly
> > on
> > laptops, has been inconsistent with some devices working with D3
> > while
> > others must re
11 matches
Mail list logo
